Wimbledon tennis fails to go through the roof

....principally because the roof was shut and was therefore doing its job well. After decades of rain affected, incomplete matches, the All-England club last night successfully closed its brand new £50 million roof to enable the match between Murray and Wawrinka to finish (which it duly did, at 22.38 London-time). With Wimbledon having suddenly dived headlong into the 21st Century, a whole series of important issues has emerged: Ian Ritchie, Chief Executive of Wimbledon, has spoken glowingly about the new roof; the BBC's audience peaked at 12 million, instantaneously establishing Wimbledon as a newly reinvigorated television spectacle; Andy Murray complained that the combination of grass, a roof, a late night and the heat made for difficult playing conditions; and those attending the match expressed concerns that afterwards they were unable to find their way around the Wimbledon site - a site which is not usually used at such a late hour and thus doesn't have e.g. the lighting that is needed to ensure people move around safely. Thus, what should the organisers of Wimbledon learn from this new experience? Can the tournament proceed in both the short-term and the long-term without any further work on the site being undertaken? Are there particular issues or concerns that the event manager's need to address if the new roof is to be the asset that many are already purporting it to be? And what will happen when it rains? A warm summer night could well be a considerably different experience to a wet Wednesday afternoon, characterised by torrential rain - has Wimbledon thought about or accounted for the differences? In this context, how have any associated risks been identified and addressed, and what contingencies are there in place if the roof, or any other part of the tournament experience, causes difficulty in any way?

Court out by a Mango

Following the attention that ambush marketing has recently been receiving, both in this blog and elsewhere, I received the following e-mail over the weekend: "I had centre court tickets for [Wimbledon] last week. Get off tube at Southfields and pick up all the usual freebies on the 15 min walk up Wimbledon Park Rd. Have bottle of Evian and a fizzy drink in a can 'Rubicon' Mango I think. When they check my bag at the entrance - I'm told I can take the Evian in (official sponsor) but can't take the Rubicon into the ground. I either have to drink it before entering (which I did) or dispose of it - there were piles of Ribena, Mars bars (I think) and cans of Rubicon where people had just left them. When I question it, I'm told 'ambush marketing'. Just how mad is this? These guys can't start telling me what I can / can't take into an arena? This belongs in a totalitarian state; my guess would be that some of this stuff must contravene Human Rights law." Is this true? Is sport heading for confrontation if it continues to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to 'policing' what event managers and sponsors perceive as being ambushing attempts? Or are ambush police now behaving disproportionately? Are such actions justifiable and necessary, or are they now becoming entirely reprehensible? And how long before a human rights group, lawyer, consumer protection group or another similar organisation, take matters into their own hands, and how will/should sport and its sponsors react to this?

Hello Moto

While F1 does its best to destroy itself through a mixture of politics, a failure to agree how the sport should move forward, and the absence of truly exciting racing, a rival motor sport series goes from strength-to-strength, providing a lesson in how to re-organise, brand and deliver exciting motor sport. Motor cycling's international MotoGP series is thriving; in the last race, the Catalunya GP in Spain, Valentino Rossi was victorious after the lead had changed three times on the last lap alone. Heading into this weekend's Dutch Grand Prix at Assen, three riders were tied at the top of the championship - Rossi, Casey Stoner and Jorge Lorenzo. The sport is a phenomenon, with a huge following in countries like Spain, Italy and France, and races in countries as far afield as Qatar, Great Britain, Japan and the United States (http://www.motogp.com/) One simple question: such has been the success of MotoGP over the last decade, what can F1 learn from its two-wheeled rival?

Water, water everywhere....but cover the label

A really nice piece of Wimbledon coverage from Kevin Eason at The Times: "[Andy] Murray was swigging from a bottle provided by Highland Spring, a sponsor reckoned to pay around £1 million-a-year to keep the Murray tonsils lubricated. But that is Verboten here at Wimbledon because it has its own sponsor, Evian, who pay an awful lot more for the privilege of being the only H20 provider on site. So Murray was instructed to tear the label from his illegal bottle so we poor saps in the crowd would not be led down the paths of watery unrighteousness in the thirst department." The story ties in nicely with a working paper we have just published here at CIBS entitled: 'A Typology of Ambush Marketing: The Methods and Strategies of Ambushing in Sport' http://www.coventry.ac.uk/researchnet/d/755
Did Murray deliberately or accidentally ambush Evian (did he actually ambush or was he just complicit)? If deliberate, what might be the the implications of his actions? What should the implications of his actions? Should tournament officials impose sanctions on him? Or would this be complete madness? Did Highland Spring ask Murray to do what he did? What should be done if they did? What if they applied pressure on him? Given that Murray tore the label off his water, isn't it 'story over'? Or is it a case of objective achieved (although the label came off, the story has drawn attention to Highland Spring)? And should any of this matter? Hasn't sponsorship gone mad, and aren't ambushers simply providing unnecessary further corporate distraction from the central attraction - the sport?

Futurology Focus

I was really fortunate yesterday to be able to spend time listening to a presentation by Robin Mannings, Chief Researcher and Futurologist for BT Innovate. In his presentation, Mannings set out his predictions for the long-term challenges that he thinks we are all facing. Given the pervasiveness of these challenges, they will inevitably impact upon sport and it would therefore seem worthwhile summarising them to promote consideration of just exactly how sport will be affected:

• Financial chaos: it was stated that, with current UK debt levels running at 300% of GDP and with other countries also suffering similar debt crises, the economic problems of the last two years are a slow-burner that will continue to cause further, future, possibly even more serious, problems;
• Global pandemics: with bird flu and now swine flu thought to be posing a danger to human health, and with global mobility ever increasing, the threat level of virulent viruses will remain high;
• Extreme weather: there was no debate here; weather patterns are changing, the climate is definitely changing, and the climate problems we are therefore likely to face will intensify leading us into a need to radically address both how we consume/produce, and how we respond to the difficulties we will inevitably face;
• Energy demand: a specific issue about the use of current use of unsustainable sources of energy that one can nevertheless extrapolate from into a more general discussion about future competition for resources and space, allied to the likelihood of major human security worries;
• Demographic shifts: larger populations, ageing populations, more mobile populations, sedentary lifestyles; all will cause major headaches for governments, for the financial system, for health care providers et al.

Hence, the important questions would seem to be: how will each of these mega-issues impact upon sport, how will sport respond and what will sport therefore look like in 50, or even 25, years time?

Murray's minted

It's open season at the moment as commentators across Britain have been speculating on how much Andy Murray will be worth following this year's Wimbledon, especially if he wins the men's singles title. With his career prize winnings amounting to somewhere around £4 million, predictions of Murray's endorsement value have ranged from career earnings of £80 million (a prediction admittedly made by Murray's agent) through to £10 million from such deals. Moreover, there are suggestions that if an unsuccessful British (former) player like Tim Henman can earn a career total of £20 million from endorsements, then things should be plain sailing for a winner like Murray. As if to accentuate this even further, Murray has just signed deals with CAA and 19 Entertainment (in the latter case joining David Beckham on the company's roster of clients). Is all of this realistic thinking on the part of commentators and Murray's advisers? Does Murray really have what it would take to make him a major endorsement property in tennis, let alone sport generally? Is he the finished product? Does he have the looks, persona and performance to enable him to compete for the top money with Federer, Nadal et al? Are the raw materials there? What role will intermediaries play? To what extent can 19 Entertainment do for Murray what they have done for Beckham? Could whatever issues there might be in building the Murray brand be addressed if he married someone famous, was photographed in popular night-spots, and picked up some famous friends? For a man who is known for being somewhat humourless, how should Murray's advisers work-up the brand? Is edgy the way to go? Is there something there, say, for brooding teenagers? Or are there other target markets which, with some appropriate image management, Murray could appeal to? And a leading final question: Andy Murray or Cristiano Ronaldo? Which one is worth £80 million, and which one is more likely to be an endorsement success?

Gimme a break!

The Spanish government was set to remove a tax-break on high-earning foreigners (a tax-break aimed at encouraging leading executives to relocate to Spain) that would have hit the pocket's of Real Madrid's incoming galacticos (Mk II) hard. The plan has now been rejected, and the proposed increase in tax from 24% to 43% will not therefore happen. Cristiano Ronaldo et al. will probably be breathing a sigh of relief. Last year, the British government, in a similar move, announced that the earnings of players appearing for an overseas team in finals staged in the country would be exempt from taxation. It is thought that Wembley lost out in its bid to host UEFA's 2010 Champions League Final because players were liable to pay tax on earnings from bonuses and endorsements, should they play in the UK. However, the British government changed the law, and Wembley subsequently won the right to stage the 2011 Champions League Final. Are such tax advantages right? Are they fair? In terms of Adam Smith's canons of taxation, can we agree that both the Spanish and British governments were correct in their approach to managing these sports taxation issues? Does sport, does football, deserve such breaks? Aren't such tax advantages discriminatory, and shouldn't the general population be concerned? Or is it important that governments do their utmost to promote the hosting of leading sport events and support the immigration of the world's leading players and athletes? Indeed, taking the example of Ronaldo (CR9®?) as a case in point, if he is going to sell as many shirts as people think he will, could the net outcome be that whatever tax benefits are conferred upon such people, the economic activity they induce actually generates tax revenues in excess of any tax advantages they are given? Overall therefore, should tax breaks of the nature described above be made more progressive, more regressive, or should they remain the same?

History, heritage and a load of balls

A very interesting piece of sponsorship coverage from http://sponsorpitch.com/blog/show/148 in which it is highlighted that the Wimbledon Grand Slam tennis championship has had several long relationships with 'sponsors', including: Slazenger (100 years+); Robinsons' (75 years+); Rolex (30 years+); and IBM (20 years+). The durability of these 'sponsorships' is astonishing, which raises some interesting questions. Why have the sponsorships been so durable? Does it mean they have been effective and profitable for all concerned? What is required to ensure that such relationships continue, with both parties satisfied by their relationship? To what extent do such deals reveal something about the role that trust and commitment play in sponsorship relations? Could sponsorship actually be akin to a good marriage, in which case: what lessons does the longevity of strong marriages provide sponsorship managers with? Perhaps it may simply be a case of not tinkering with something that appears to be working well? Ultimately, dare we believe that the above 'sponsorships' really are the quintessence of good sponsorship? Or is this view naive? Surely such long relationships must be dominated by age-old practices, norms and procedures that mean the sponsorships are neither as strong or as lucrative as they could/should be? Indeed, at a time when sporting events are exposed to as many competitive pressures as the brands that support them, don't the deals effectively mean that Wimbledon must be incredibly entrenched in the way it does business, relying more on a misplaced sense of loyalty rather than being outward-looking and reliant on strong commercial and strategic management?

A qualified success?

With Chief Executive Rick Parry set to leave the club, Liverpool FC has announced that his replacement, as Managing Director, will be Christian Purslow. Purslow is reported to have a degree from Cambridge University and an MBA from Harvard Business School, as well as being fluent in Spanish (handy given the proliferation of Spaniards at the Merseyside club). Liverpool co-owner George Gillett is thought to believe that Purslow's experience will be vital to the future of the club. An interesting story, especially for someone who works in academia and who's business is delivering education. But what does it tell us: about Liverpool? About football? About sport? And about the changing environment in which sports clubs now operate? At one time, the off-field workforce of football clubs was characterised by the employment of ex-players as leading officials and managers (e.g. former player Pedrag Mijatovic has only recently left Real Madrid, following Ramon Calderon's resignation as Club President) - is this changing? Are the managerial challenges now facing sport so different, so intense, and much less directly related to on-field performance, that the recruitment of managers from outside sport is becoming much more of a norm? If so, is this a good thing? Do such people bring skills and knowledge that can only be good for sport and the development of its managerial and commercial activities? Will the new breed bring more of a calculating, dispassionate and rational perspective to sport? Given the financial problems facing many sport organisations, rapid changes in the demands of fans, increasingly complex media markets and global developments in sport, the engagement of highly qualified managers is surely a no-brainer for clubs? Besides, isn't it about time that sport went through a period of culture-busting, with important decisions being made by educated, informed managers? Or, once MBA graduates start running sport, haven't we got to worry? Doesn't it herald the final descent of sport from a position of socio-cultural embeddedness to one where it is simply a commercial commodity? Do the people now securing important positions in sport diminish the heritage of sport? Isn't one of the reasons that managers in sport are often ex-athletes because they care so much and know so much more about sport than anyone else? Don't they make up for the absence of a top-business school education with their commitment and passion for sport, and their inside knowledge? And, if ex-players are going to disappear from sport management roles, won't it severely damage the link between current athletes and their on-field performances and what happens off-field?

Basketball Nation

An interesting story on the Sport Business website, which addresses the emergence, growth and strategic plans of Euroleague basketball: http://www.sportbusiness.com/print-edition/conquering-continent In the article, some of the sport's leading teams are mentioned, including the polideportivos of Real Madrid and Barcelona (both often better known for their football teams). Given the view being stressed by some commentators that China has become a basketball nation, and the fact that basketball is one of the United States' most popular sports, what might be the implications of Euroleague success for the overall success of the family brand? That is, could the polideportivo structure of these two clubs confer market advantages upon their associated football teams in attempts to secure market share, in countries like China and the US, ahead of rival football teams like Manchester United, AC Miland and Bayern Munich?

No Nadal, no deal

Number 1 seed Rafa Nadal has withdrawn from the Wimbledon tournament due to a knee injury. Number 2 seed and chief rival Roger Federer responded by saying: "I'd love to play him. He's my main rival.....we've had some wonderful matches over the years, including last year, so that we can't repeat that is obviously sad." But who is more sad, Federer or the Wimbledon organisers? In sport, when a star player or the best player in the world at that moment withdraws from a tournament or event, what is the economic, commercial and financial impact of the withdrawal? Will Nadal's absence undermine Wimbledon's revenues? Will ticket sales fall? Will sponsorship revenues be affected? Will broadcasting contracts be worth less? Will corporate clients be less receptive to buying hospitality packages? And in this year more than in any other year, due to the downturn, will Nadal's knee especially undermine Wimbledon's performance? That said, given the 128 male singles players who are turning out at this year's Wimbledon, will Nadal's absence be economically, commercially and financially imperceptible? Taking domestic hopes for Andy Murray out of the equation, is the prestige, status and general appeal of the tournament such that the absence of a player, even the Number 1 seed, is insufficient to reduce demand for tickets, hospitality packages etc? Indeed, this raises an interesting question, what would it take for the impact of a tennis Grand Slam to be seriously affected? A global economic downturn? The absence from a tournament of the top two seeds? The top three seeds? Or is the nature of these sporting properties so unique, so robust, that they are essentially immune to the same kinds of pressure that might undermine the performance of organisations one might observe in other sports, or in other industries?

Chronicle of a death foretold

As predicted some time ago in this blog, F1's problems have failed to go away, last night resulting in most of the teams announcing that they will split from the official FIA championship to form their own series for the start of the 2010 season. Some people are suggesting that this is simply brinkmanship on the part of the teams, a show of strength in their attempt to get the FIA to back-down on new cost-control measures; other people however believe that the current situation was entirely predictable, as major underlying schisms have long been a feature of F1. Which is true? Is this actually a battle about economy measures in F1? Or something else? Is it more a case of the current feud being loaded with issues of power and control? Are the teams right to be concerned? Afterall, they deliver the core product in F1, they provide the appeal, surely they should be the dominant force in determing future strategy in the sport? Or does this detract from, and undermine, the central role that any governing body should play in sport? Are the teams simply out of touch with the economic realities of a sport that has become too much of a commercial and financial monster? Perhaps there is actually something even more fundamental at stake here? Consider this: concerns have been expressed about Alan Donnelly. Donnelly simultaneously serves as Official Representative of the President of the FIA (Max Moseley), and Chairman of the F1 Stewards. Many of the teams in F1 apparently feel that Donnelly's duel roles constitute a conflict of interest, and have allegedly asked for him to resign. Is this what F1's problems are therefore really all about? That is, is the serious impasse that F1 now faces due not to financial or economic issues, but a problem of governance? In which case, would even the FIA's capitulation on the matter of budget-capping address underlying and deep concerns about the governance of F1? Perhaps this is now the crossroads F1 has been heading towards for some time? May be the sport has to change and will change, and 2010 will be the year that we bid farewell to F1 as we have known it?

It's all about the money

Ahead of the IOC's decision about which city will host the 2016 Olympic Games, the organisation's President, Jacques Rogge, has stated that: “I share the view...the economics should not drive our decision...it is not the economics but leaving a sustaining legacy.” In other words, the city that potentially will deliver the highest revenues will not necessarily win the right to host the Games. To what extent is this an acceptable, appropriate or realistic view? When many host countries are using billions of pounds of domestic tax-payer's money, are Rogge's views not entirely appropriate? Don't citizens of host nations deserve for the Games to at least break-even, if not actually make a profit in order to reward their sacrifices? Isn't there an argument that the IOC has an obligation to work towards generating an acceptable financial return for their hosts? What's wrong with making a profit from such sporting events anyway? The IOC surely makes such a profit, doesn't it? Perhaps this is an unnecessarily calculating view? Surely playing host to the world's biggest sporting event provides other rewards that directly or indirectly generate benefits for host countries that cannot and need not be measured in financial terms? Nevertheless, if Rogge's views do actually prevail in most cases, how does/how will legacy strategy be affected in countries seeking to bid for the Games? If the expectation is that money invested in hosting the Games is not expected by the IOC to generate a commercial return, what other returns are available to any hosts of the Games? Indeed, doesn't this stance effectively reduce the Olympic Games to the position of e.g. an infrastructural investment, rather than being a celebration of sport? That is, doesn't the whole 'legacy effect' relate more to the construction of e.g. new roads, railways etc, rather than delivering a memorable Games? Although, in the end, is the intended outcome of hosting the Games really a straight choice between profit and some notion of legacy?

Everything's gone green

Two interesting 'green' stories recently that seemingly serve to highlight sport's environmental credentials: http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/169689/ryder-cup-goes-green and http://www.insidethegames.com//show-news.php?id=5956 When it comes to the environment, is sport really so virtuous? Or is it an inconvenient truth that many sports are complicit in the environmental problems we are increasingly having to face up to? When one thinks about, for instance, the land and resource usage associated with golf; the intense and frequent use of fossil fuels in motor sport; the waste generated by sports fans; and the plastics and other artificial materials used in sport, aren't initiatives such as those covered by the above web links merely a sop to the green lobby? Perhaps environmental concerns in sport are nothing more than a constituent part of some vague or poorly defined notion of corporate responsibility? In these terms, surely sport is thus part of the problem, not part of the solution? Or is this being unfair? Is it not the case that many sports are actually waking up to their environmental responsibilities, and that we are seeing positive action and considerable dynamism e.g. FIFA's 2006 World Cup in Germany was labelled football's greenest ever championship? Given the global profile of many sports, allied to the loyalty and affinity exhibited by its fans, surely sport has a hugely important role to play in trumpeting new environmental initiatives? Might there be an opportunity for some sports/sport organisations to establish a market position or brand image based on clear and well defined responses to environmental concerns? In which case, to what extent might sport organisations be able to set environmental performance benchmarks that organisations in other industrial sectors might be able to follow?

Balanced argument

With the multi-million pound signings of football players still looming large on the sporting horizon; with the Indian Premier League in cricket having just come to an end; with the Formula One World Championship possibly heading towards a split; and with the centralist principles of the North American sporting model still firmly intact, a serious debate about competitive balance has now begun to emerge. But what is competitive balance, and what is involved in securing balanced competition? Indeed, in sports like European football and Formula One motor racing, is competitive balance an unattainable ideal, or are the prospects much brighter than such a judgement might suggest? Can the quest for competitive balance be simply fulfilled by preventing clubs like Real Madrid from expensively acquiring the services of the world's best athletes? Or is there something much more fundamental to it than this? For competitive balance to really exist, do all competitors need to be as equal as possible in every possible sense e.g. organisation size, available financial resources etc? Moreover, how should competitive balance be measured? If a different team wins the championship each season, should we be happy? Perhaps this is an over-simplification and it means something much more? How can/should the tensions inherent in managing competitive balance (e.g. player concerns about salary controls) be effectively addressed? And where might the optimum competitive balance lie? Isn't it actually more beneficial for sport if there is some element of imbalance? After all, in the extreme, if all teams are equally balanced, is there actually a sense that one might witness a series of drawn contests?

On-demand footage

Play the Game: on-demand footage of the week's events now available:
http://www.playthegame.org/conferences/play-the-game-2009/on-demand-streaming.html

Rokaka v Yao Ming

Given the amount of money that Real Madrid has spent on acquiring the services of Rokaka, it would seem to be entirely predictable that the Spanish club will be adopting an aggressive overseas commercial strategy over the next five years. Markets including those in Central and South America could be important, but South-East Asian markets are likely to be even more important, particularly China which is often perceived as having tremendous commercial potential. However, there is a number of issues that football clubs like Real need to consider before the monetary value of such markets is fully realised: against whom are Real Madrid competing for market space and share in countries like China? Is it Manchester United and AC Milan; or the NBA and MLB; or Apple and Chanel? If it is actually the NBA, is the signing of Rokaka too little too late, has China already become a basketball nation? Has the NBA stolen first-mover advantage? Is signing two of the world's leading players the best way to enter and develop a market? Or is opening up a China office with 500+ staff, investing in a predicted 6,000 retail outlets and guaranteeing to help build thousands of basketball courts across China a more effective strategy? And is a collective strategy (the NBA) or an individual organisational strategy in which sporting rivals do not coordinate with one another (European football clubs) the most appropriate way of seeking a foothold in overseas markets? In which case, do European football clubs need to work together if they are to fight the challenges posed by sports such as basketball?

A week is a long time in sport

Having promised to Blog and Twitter my way through the Play the Game conference last week, I failed dismally. If you would like to find out what went on during the conference, check out the on-demand coverage: http://www.playthegame.org/conferences/play-the-game-2009/on-demand-streaming.html My own personal favourite session was that which addressed the issue of match fixing. While I was holed-up in the conference, the world record transfer fee for a football player has been broken twice and a major sport broadcaster has been brought to the brink of bankruptcy. So, a week of blogging lost, but plenty to talk about; so, drawing inspiration from the week's events and the Play the Game conference, here is a series of questions to consider:

• To what extent is it justifiable (economically, socially and morally) to spend £80 million to 'purchase' the services of one person, and does the acquisition of Cristiano Ronaldo by Real Madrid tell us anything about the value we place on sport?
• Is match-fixing in sport really taking place to any great extent and, if it is as serious as some suspect, exactly what is the 'threat-level' that it poses?
• Are on-line gambling companies to blame for the presumed growth in fixing; alternatively stated, are they part of the problem when they need to be part of the solution?
• Is European football now polarising to such an extent that we are rapidly heading for a two-track game - the 'haves' and the 'have nots' - which will seriously undermine competitive balance thereby destroying the sport's fundamental appeal?
• Just exactly how many athletes/competitors in sport take performance-enhancing drugs that often go undetected, and is it our fault or theirs that the case for taking drugs often seems so seductive to them?
• Has the relationship between sport and television become too close, and is there a need for the dependency of sport on revenues derived from TV to be reappraised?
• Are sporting mega-events worth the money, or should the money spent on them be allocated to the funding of other forms of sport?
• Do we need to think more about the role that animals play in sport, when there thousands and thousands of animals being discarded each year in the name of sporting success?

Playing the game

This coming week, I will be attempting to play the game at Play the Game, a major sport conference taking place at Coventry University (www.playthegame.org/conferences/play-the-game-2009.html). That is, I will be trying to blog and Twitter about the main issues each day. Ahead of the conference, it is worthwhile considering its main themes:

• Ethics in governance: Will sports federations come clean?
• Between Beijing and London: Mega-events as drivers of development
• Business battles: The power struggles in football
• Match-fixing: A blow to the core of sport
• Terrible teenagers? Sport’s quest for the hearts and minds of the youth
• Anti-Doping: Will the technological arms race come to an end?
• Paralympic athletes: More different than the rest?
• Sport for the Good: What is it good for?

Do these themes represent the biggest challenges facing sport at the moment? Are there other key themes that are missing from the programme? In which case, how should a conference of this nature actually address these issues?

Break-dance

Back to F1 - while the crisis talks that took place between FIA and FOTA at the Monaco Grand Prix are likely to get F1 through to the end of the season, the debate about regulations for next season rumbles on. Indeed, the Toyota team has actually come clean and said that a 2010 breakaway championship is one of a number of options that FOTA is considering. We have been here before: in 1980, a stand-off between FIA and FOCA (the Formula One Constructors Association - the 80's incarnation of FOTA) led to the emergence of break-away threats. What can F1 learn from the precedents and politics of 1980s motor sport? Can history provide any lessons to help in eliminating the potential threat of a massive and permanently damaging split in F1? From here, how best should decisions be taken to ensure that FIA and FOTA both emerge from the current impasse, satisfied and having saved face? Is there a role for an independent arbiter, and is this person already in waiting? Could it be Bernie Ecclestone? Should it be Bernie Ecclestone? Or is there a need for someone from outside, and independent of, the sport to become involved? Is the role that Lord Stevens (a former Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police Force) played in investigating football player agents for the English Football Association a model that might prove useful in F1? Or is F1's current predicament tantamount to a domestic dispute that is best resolved privately between partners? Whatever the correct course of action, surely the governing bodies and the teams have to get their acts together? At a time of economic hardship, with several sponsors due to withdraw from F1, but with a number of historic teams threatening to withdraw, surely there has to be an obvious, consensual way forward?

Suits you, sir

FINA (the Fédération Internationale de Natation), essentially the main international swimming federation, is facing legal action after swimwear brand blueseventy expressed concerns about FINA's bodysuit tests, which led to the banning of several blueseventy suits due to air trapping (which apparently gives the suits more buoyancy). Notwithstanding arguments about the testing procedure and the meaning of 'air trapping', blueseventy are especially concerned about having lost a month's worth of business already due to the ban, and about the impending World Championships from which the aforementioned suits could well be absent unless the company's products are reinstated into swimming. How could such a situation arise in the first place? Surely the company must have taken into account the rules concerning 'air trapping' during its product R&D phase? Was the product tested, and how did it perform? Were the tests used by the manufacturer different to those that are used by FINA? And how is FINA defining, quantifying and measuring 'air trapping'? Is measurement possible and, if so, how is it carried out? Is it a precise science or something that has gross margins of error? With millions of pounds presumably invested in the product, should blueseventy have the right to litigate against FINA if it is proven that FINA has made an incorrect, inaccurate or careless ruling? In which case, how might one calculate the damage to short-term profit and long-term brand health? And what are the lessons here for other sports, where governing bodies could enforce a ruling which is subsequently overturned? Should individuals, teams and clubs and sports be able to readily and freely litigate against the governing body, or would this be against the spirit and morality of sport?

Obsessive-compulsive sport sponsorship

The obsessive compulsive part of this is this blog's continuing preoccupation with football (even though the football season has ended and I promised not to write about it). Reports have surfaced that Manchester United has signed an £80 million shirt sponsorship deal with the Aon Corporation, a US-based insurance company. The deal will start at the beginning of the 2010/11 football season and is being hailed as the biggest shirt sponsorship deal in history. In the context of reports late last year when it was becoming clear that AIG would pull their deal with United, how do we read the Aon deal? Are United now established beyond all doubt as the world's leading football club brand? Are Aon being commercially naive, over-estimating the power of football to reach out to customers across the world? Is this the ultimate recession-busting deal, a testament to the power of sport and of football? In short, what is this deal all about?

OK, OK, OK, OKaka

OK, OK, OK.....I know I said I wouldn't blog about football again for a while, but with an (un)reliable source having told me me that Kaka will sign for Real Madrid tomorrow, I couldn't resist. Apologies to the non-football lovers. Real's seemingly imminent signing of Kaka from AC Milan has been brought about by the re-election as club president of Florentino Perez, the man who splashed the cash when he was previously Madrid's president thereby ushering-in the 'galacticos' era of Ronaldo, Zidane, Beckham et al. What are we to make of Kaka's signing, and will it be followed by the signings of Ronaldo, Fabregas and Ribery? Are we on the cusp of a new galacticos era? What does Kaka's signing reveal about Real Madrid's commercial strategy, their marketing strategy, and their approach to on-field performance? How will this and other possible signings impact upon the club's brand, and the targetting of overseas fans? Will the size and nature of such transfer deals further skew an already highly distorted transfer market? Will Kaka's departure undermine Italian football, causing even more problems for the nation's football leagues than they have already? To what extent will Kaka's expected arrival reinforce the position of Spain's La Liga as one of the world's 'Big-2' (alongside England's Premier League)? And a final question: where is Florentino Perez getting the money from to engage in such player acquisition and remuneration? Last time round, he sold Real Madrid's training ground as real estate, netting the club upwards of Euros 400 million. Where is he getting the money from this time and what problems, if any, might these cause for the club?

Personality crisis?

A posting on this blog a couple of months ago highlighted state payments that had been made to Tiger Woods in return for the player's appearance at the Australian Masters golf tournament this November. Early indications are that there will be record demand for tickets as a result of Woods playing in the competition, something that has been reinforced by a sensible ticket pricing policy which will only lead to in an increase in prices for the finals day's rounds. Are the expectations surrounding the event merely hype on the part of the organisers, who are no doubt keen to ensure that the $3 million outlay on Woods is recouped? Is the potential success of the event down to the creation of an appropriate pricing strategy? Or are we to conclude that golf is now simply a personality-driven sport? More damningly, a one-person personality-driven sport?

Racing to an end

In a recent interview in the Racing Post, BBC commentator John Inverdale lamented the current state of British horse-racing. Inverdale commented that the sport has too little to offer, especially to TV audiences (sometimes there might only be three or four races, each lasting less than 10 minutes, over a three or four hour period). In addition, he complained that races are scheduled to appear on TV at times when the total audience size is very small, and that racing is becoming evermore elitist. Indeed, Inverdale regrettably noted that 75% of people who go racing for the first time, never go again. Is Inverdale right, perhaps horse-racing really is in desperate trouble; or are these the views of an unnecessarily pessimistic racing fan who hankers after a return to a former golden age of racing? Given the role that the media plays in sport, its coverage, its popularisation and its financing, surely racing must therefore have to change in order to remain solvent, popular, relevant and contemporary? Is there a further, equally as important, and inextricably linked issue: does competition structure and race format have to change in order to bring horse-racing into the 21st Century? Would this mean resorting to new short-format racing, in much the same way as cricket, snooker and golf have introduced new short-format competitions? Could there be another way, other than the short-format option, whereby the configuration of media, competition format, horse ownership, course utilisation and betting activities changes? And what role should the latter - betting - play in shaping the future for horse-racing? (Thanks to Graham Daniels for the 'heads-up' on horse-racing's problems).